|
0 members (),
261
guests, and
25
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790 |
President Bush may not be off to a good start as he begins his second term, won largely by those who believed him to be sincere in his prolife stance. Check this out: web page [ worldnetdaily.com] For some reason I am unable to make a link to that site, but Gonzales was not prolife as Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice, even allowing a teenager to abort her child without her parents' knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680 Likes: 14
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680 Likes: 14 |
Correct link is: Pro-lifers not thrilled with Gonzales choice [ worldnetdaily.com] Gonzales seems to be an acceptable choice for Attorney General. He is has been very loyal to President Bush and has promised to respect and support the President�s agenda. Since he is pro-abortion, he is not an acceptable candidate for the federal bench. But, as Attorney General, he will not be making policy decisions. He will be enforcing them. It is unrealistic to expect everyone who works in the Bush administration to be pro-life. It is, however, vitally important that his cabinet support his agenda. Keep in mind that Colin Powell is pro-abortion, but promised to support (and has supported) President Bush�s promotion of a worldwide culture of life.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790 |
Well if he has a proabortion attorney general, and proabortion Specter heading the judiciary committee some of us are going to continue to be sceptical about his sincerity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Acceptable? His part in the extreme use of the death penalty in Texas? His advocacy for torture? His advocacy against the Geneva convention? His advocacy for detention without due process? While it is often said around here that without the right to life all other rights are in jeopardy, apparently a right-to-life platform in no way secures them! http://keyetv.com/topstories/topstories_story_315115603.html "Gonzales publicly defended the administration's policy -- essentially repudiated by the Supreme Court and now being fought out in the lower courts -- of detaining certain terrorism suspects for extended periods without access to lawyers or courts. He also wrote a controversial February 2002 memo in which Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture law and international treaties providing protections to prisoners of war. That position drew fire from human rights groups, which said it helped led to the type of abuses uncovered in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. " http://slate.msn.com/id/2109495/ The state of Texas executed 150 men and two women during Bush's six-year tenure as governor--a rate unmatched by any other state in modern U.S. history. As governor, Bush had statutory power to delay executions and the political power to influence the state Board of Pardons and Paroles to commute them entirely, where there was a procedural error, cause for mercy, or a bona fide claim of innocence. Then-Gov. Bush assigned Gonzales a critical role in the clemency process--asking him to provide a legal memo on the morning of each execution day outlining the key facts and issues of the case at hand. According to Alan Berlow, who obtained Gonzales' memoranda after a protracted legal fight with the state of Texas and wrote about them in the July/August 2003 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, Gonzales' legal skills fell far short of the mark that one might expect for this serious task: A close examination of the Gonzales memoranda suggests that Governor Bush frequently approved executions based on only the most cursory briefings on the issues in dispute. In fact, in these documents Gonzales repeatedly failed to apprise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence. On the basis of these memos, Gov. Bush allowed every single execution--save one--to go forward in his state. It's not clear whether Bush directed Gonzales to provide such superficial and conclusory legal research, or whether Gonzales did so of his own accord. Regardless, the point remains that the White House's new nominee to head the Justice Department turned in work that would have barely earned a passing grade in law school, let alone satisfy the requirements of a job in which life and death were at stake. Perhaps more important, these early memos from Texas revealed Gonzales' startling willingness to sacrifice rigorous legal analysis to achieve pre-ordained policy results at the drop of a Stetson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,708
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,708 |
Originally posted by Administrator: Correct link is: Pro-lifers not thrilled with Gonzales choice [worldnetdaily.com]
Gonzales seems to be an acceptable choice for Attorney General. He is has been very loyal to President Bush and has promised to respect and support the President�s agenda. Since he is pro-abortion, he is not an acceptable candidate for the federal bench. But, as Attorney General, he will not be making policy decisions. He will be enforcing them.
It is unrealistic to expect everyone who works in the Bush administration to be pro-life. It is, however, vitally important that his cabinet support his agenda. Keep in mind that Colin Powell is pro-abortion, but promised to support (and has supported) President Bush�s promotion of a worldwide culture of life. I had first heard of Gonzales as a possible nominee for federal judge or Supreme Court justice. If there is a bright spot to him being Attorney General, it is that he will not be on the federal bench where he could really do harm.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,252
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,252 |
quote byzanTN:
"If there is a bright spot to him being Attorney General, it is that he will not be on the federal bench where he could really do harm."
Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the unborn, Pray for us! Intercede with your Son for the conversion of Mr. Gonzales' heart.
Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 216
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 216 |
He was raised a Roman Catholic but I don't know if he still considers himself Catholic. Regardless of whether he considers himself to be Catholic, if it's okay to say Kerry's not Catholic, then we must conclude that Gonzales isn't Catholic either.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680 Likes: 14
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680 Likes: 14 |
djs wrote:
Acceptable?
His part in the extreme use of the death penalty in Texas? His advocacy for torture? His advocacy against the Geneva convention? His advocacy for detention without due process?
While it is often said around here that without the right to life all other rights are in jeopardy, apparently a right-to-life platform in no way secures them! I don�t think there is anything extreme about his position on the death penalty. The Church clearly recognizes the right of a country to use the death penalty while also advocating the mercy of never using it. You cannot condemn someone for ruling or even advocating something the Church clearly allows. Advocating torture? Absurd. It�s just not rooted in fact. This idea that he engineered torture and murder of prisoners in Iraq is just plain silly. The issues regarding detention of enemy combatants in time of war without due process (as it relates to the Geneva Convention) is complicated and debatable. I was against the whole idea until I heard an interview with a Japanese woman who authored a book on how the United States was correct to detain the Japanese-Americans in time of war. She went on to note that almost all of the enemy combatants who have been released immediately went back to join the enemy in fighting us. Some issues are just not black and white. I think it is very good that President Bush can enlist the support of someone who is pro-abortion to work for his pro-life agenda. Gonzales is unqualified to serve on the federal bench because of his position on abortion (if these reports are accurate and tell the whole story). But if he promises to work for the President�s agenda as AG, then I don�t see a major issue. President Bush seems have the talent of enlisting the support and enthusiasm even of those who disagree with him. Jay Sekulow, the Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (which is a tremendous pro-life organization) speaks highly of Gonzales. For Sekulow to speak highly of Gonzales very likely means that even if Gonzales is pro-abortion that Gonzales may not see the right to abortion in the Constitution. If this is the case (and I don�t know) then it will be very interesting to watch Gonzales.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790 |
No, if the ACLJ speaks highly of Gonzales it probably means that he lines up with their right wing agenda on other issues, like the death penalty, and they are willing to overlook his proabortion position...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680 Likes: 14
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680 Likes: 14 |
The ACLJ never overlooks a proabortion position.
And I am a proud supporter of their �right wing agenda�.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,790 |
So I have gathered...
-Daniel, neither left not right but beyond
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680 Likes: 14
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680 Likes: 14 |
You might disagree, but I believe that the ACLJ does fine work in protecting � and restoring - the constitutional freedoms of people of faith. Its main effort is to protect human life from conception until natural death. I am always saddened to find people who disagree with their goals. They have had success in clarifying the rights of high school students and employees to organize religious clubs (equal access). They have supported the Catholic Church in adverse court rulings attempting to force dioceses to provide benefits for the homosexual partners of employees. Their mission statement on life issues (abortion, euthanasia, cloning, stem cell research) is very much � although not perfectly - in line with Catholic teaching. I am sorry that you consider these issues only the property of the "right wing".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
I don�t think there is anything extreme about his position on the death penalty. There you go again. I said extreme use. You respond with extreme position. The use was extreme - the numbers executed in Texas exceeded all other juridictions considerably. The Church clearly recognizes the right of a country to use the death penalty while also advocating the mercy of never using it. You cannot condemn someone for ruling or even advocating something the Church clearly allows. You are wrong and dangerously so. Just becuase something is not necessarily wrong, in principle, does not make it right, in practice. And you know this very well. The Church, for example, clearly allows voting for a pro-choice candidate for elective office. But the circumstances for such a vote not to be sinful are highly constrained. In the same way the Church has spoken clearly that the circumstances in which the use of captial punishment is moral are highly constrained. (It is not just about advocating mercy.) And the unparalleled use of it in Texas ought to shock a properly formed conscience. Gonzalez's lack of diligence in putting the all of the relevant facts of the cases before Bush also ought to shock a properly formed conscience. Advocating torture? Absurd In the legal sense. I would not go so far as to conclude culpability in Abu Ghraib, but as Newsweek put it, "As the president's legal gatekeeper, Gonzales was responsible for vetting some of the most controversial decisions: the treatment of prisoners, the line between aggressive but legal interrogation and torture, and the rights of "enemy combatants". Maybe you will accept the lack of absurdity if the criticism comes from the right-wing: http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=523 Here are documents. http://lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm The torture issue is black and white. The habeas corpus and related violations have fortunately been repudiated in court. I was against the whole idea until I heard an interview with a Japanese woman who authored a book on how the United States was correct to detain the Japanese-Americans in time of war. That proves it. :rolleyes: Or was she really Chinese? Hmmmm... Who was this woman and what did she say? Did she justify not only the detention but also the seizure of assests? Does she really know the whereabouts of "almost all"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680 Likes: 14
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,680 Likes: 14 |
Avery Cardinal Dulles wrote a very good article entitled �Catholicism & Capital Punishment� that was published in First Things magazine in April 2001 [ firstthings.com] . He writes towards the end: � [T]he magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. But the classical tradition held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects.�The Holy Father and the United States bishops have concluded that in a modern society the use of the death penalty might do more harm than good. But they most certainly do not declare this teaching as a formal doctrine that must be believed. [Even if it did the issue of the death penalty (punishment of the gulity) ranks well below the issue of abortion (punishment of the innocent).] If it were possible that #7 in Cardinal Dulles� summary � punishment accomplished through imprisonment where the culprit does not regain access to society to commit more crimes � then I would agree that the death penalty should not be used. But our society still frees murders to murder again. Until that can be resolved I will support the right of the state to use the death penalty. And I may do so with the respect of the Holy Father and the Church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
I will support the right of the state to use the death penalty. And I may do so with the respect of the Holy Father and the Church. I support that right as well. But that it not at all the point. The issue is not whether the death penalty can be used morally, in principle. The issues in was it exercised morally time and time and time again in Texas. "...the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: In other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent."
--Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 1995 The fact that they could have done this morally, does not mean that they did. God will judge, but the extreme frequency of use is, as I've indicated to you before, difficult if not impossible to rationalize with the idea that "such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent".
|
|
|
|
|
